Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucy (elephant)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Valley Zoo. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy (elephant)[edit]

Hopelessly biased; although it's a long article, cleaning out the POV-pushing would reduce it to a stub consisting essentially of the first two sentences of the lead. Normally something like this would be cleaned up, but in its current state this would effectively mean wiping it and starting again – and I'm not convinced there's anything particularly notable about this elephant as opposed to any other zoo animal. – iride scent 20:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Valley Zoo where there should be a neutral encyclopaedic summary of this POV screed written. Thryduulf (talk) 21:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 21:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Everything the nominator is saying is true except that there is enough neutral information to support a stub at the minimum and there is significant in-depth coverage of Lucy in reliable sources (meaning main-stream press) even in the reference list of the article to support notability and verifiability. Granted, you have to go a ways down. The article is POV but I'm not sure there really is an opposing point of view, I don't know too many people knowledgeable about elephants who think they should be kept solitary in zoos. The solution would be to clean the article up and present the campaign to rescue her in a neutral tone. (Even the campaign itself would be notable but let's don't go down that road.) Drawn Some (talk) 21:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Did a bit of cleanup on this article to help with reaching consensus. Mr_pand [talk | contributions] 23:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this article is being used for political soapboxing and making attacks on people and organizations. My personal preference is redirect, but if POV editors refuse to allow that, then delete and salt. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Valley Zoo. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
merge a small amount to the article on the zoo. The elephant is not notable, the controversy over taking care of the elephant might be,, but only locally and not worth a separate article, any more than any particular claim of mismanagement or the lack of care for any particular animal might be.If this is notable, so is every mistreated dog and cat, not to mention each abused child.DGG (talk) 08:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not every mistreated dog and cat has 36 Canadian authors petitioning for an improvement in their conditions, nor significant coverage by the Edmonton Journal and CBC News. Also, notability guidelines do not require everything to be of global significance. Mr_pand [talk | contributions] 19:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. "I'm not convinced there's anything particularly notable about this elephant as opposed to any other zoo animal." The article states that she is one of very few elephants in zoos who is kept completely alone and that Bob Barker and Margaret Atwood, among many others, have written to the zoo asking for her release. Most zoo animals don't get that much attention by a mile. The article could use some work but is certainly not as POV as it's made out to be in the above comments. The zoo's arguments that she is fine could be given more space and maybe quoted, but they are mentioned. There are apparently not celebrities and nonprofits calling for her to remain in the zoo, so it would be difficult to write the article without mentioning that so many have called for her to be removed from the zoo. It sounds like it is a significant ongoing controversy in Canada among animal welfare groups and zoo advocates and merits an article.--Gloriamarie (talk) 14:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Valley Zoo, per DGG. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Adequately sourced, notable event. Needs further cleanup to remove POV —G716 <^T·_C> 14:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.